Mixed message on Bentley property

By a vote of four to one, the planning board agreed to send a letter to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs' that Robert Gallo of Fox Hill Builders, Inc. will submit a definitive plan for a 13-lot subdivision on the 168-acre Bentley property. This comes after Gallo submitted a notice of project change to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office eliminating the 13-lot subdivision from his plans for the property.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that town officials, members of the Princeton Land Trust, Mass Audubon, Craig MacDonnell from the Trust for Public Land and others have been meeting in executive session for several weeks discussing the possibility of purchasing part or all of the Bentley land.

"He can't segment the project," said planning board member Rick McCowan. "I think we should request they not segment the project and recommend they go through with an environmental impact report on the entire project."

In March, Ian Bowles, Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, ruled that Gallo's project required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Bowles questioned the gravel removal plan on a portion of the property and the alteration of more than 50 or more acres. The area of gravel removal was linked to the 13-lot subdivision.

Twenty-three house lots in the fields are considered "Approval Not Required" under planning board regulations because each has the required frontage, land area and access.

According to MEPA, a proponent may not phase or "segment" a project to evade, defer or curtail MEPA review. McCowan believed the request for project change was contradictory to statements made to the planing board regarding the development.

"Do we have a dog in this fight?" asked board member Jim Lachance.

"We're an influential board in the community," said McCowan. "If we feel strongly we should register and opinion. This project does affect the town and the character of the town, and is contrary to the goals of the master plan, which the board supports."

Board member Brian Jackson said he could understand from a business standpoint Gallo's decision to develop the house lots in the field and wait and develop the back land later.

"That's perfectly logical, but he has to follow the MEPA process," said McCowan. "What he's trying to do is avoid an EIR now."

Lachance questioned whether the board should be "getting in the middle of a fight about whether [Gallo] is following MEPA rules."

He suggested submitting the facts to MEPA. "He's told us this is a whole project. He's telling MEPA it's a different project," said Lachance. "We've been told a definitive plan for the subdivision will come before us. But then we learned they have withdrawn that subdivision, so we could argue we have the obligation to make these facts known to MEPA."

Gallo has the right the right to develop the property, said board chairman Mark Canfield. "As far as the subdivision goes, we can and have influenced that design. They can develop the property as long as it meets our zoning bylaws."

Jackson said the board doesn't have to be adversarial. "We're working with them [Gallo] and they have cooperated and given us some of the things we've wanted," he said. He suggested communicating with Gallo before sending a letter to the MEPA office.

Members agreed to send a letter to the MEPA office in response to the notice of project change. They would note that the planning board has approved a preliminary plan for the subdivision and the developer has indicated he plans to more forward with a definitive plan. A copy of the letter was to be sent to Gallo.